you say you're ok with prices being artificially high but where do you draw the line? 2x? 3x? 100x? at what point do you think that you'll start filtering out the good guys intead? good people who don't make a lot of money...

if i must draw a line then i would say that i draw the line when a minimum wage earner saving 10% of his income so he can buy a firearm can not afford one after two years of saving. not that any lines i draw would ever actually mean anything to our rulers but since you asked that's my reply

i started saving for my first piece at 17 and by 21 i was able to afford a brand new german made autoloader. ate a lot of pancit canton and tuna in college but the sacrifice was worth it.

as it stands right now, minimum wage workers need to work around 16 months while saving 10% each month towards a gun to be able to raise 17,000 (this is if they just save and not invest at all and doesn't even take into account their 13th month pay, tips, sideline income, etcetera.)

formula i used:

P17000[cost of gun and license]/(1.33[hourly wage in usd]*42[convert to peso]*8[hours a day worked]*24[days a month worked]*.1[percent saved]) = 15.850638501 months and you got yourself a licensed piece.

i'd like to repeat my question that you have left unanswered. how cheap do you want guns to be? (also may i add, how did you arrive at that figure?) how easy would you like the process of acquiring one to be? why?

Quote:

you want more restrictive gun laws thinking that will solve our "gun problem" yet are completely missing the point just like our politicians. YOU ARE ONLY RESTRICTING LEGAL GUN OWNERS. criminal dude just grabs a gun from a security guard to buys one cheap from the black market

i don't want more restrictions, i am fed up with some of the restrictions actually.

i did mention that i am leaning towards advocating for requiring some tangible proof that applicants fully understand user manuals and the laws governing the particular kind of firearm they are to purchase including proper conduct when in personal possession of said firearm. this will of course be seen as a restriction but probably only by the illiterate and the lazy.

i am not into restricting qualified gun owners, for example i am actually an advocate of issue the PTC to the person not the weapon, ito talaga milking the cow na kasi.

the "criminal dude" who would gun grab has nothing to do with this discussion. the cost of legal guns can not have any appreciable effect on people who will acquire it illegally anyway.

black market guns are not always cheaper. in my experience they tend to be more expensive even, especially if you consider the quality that can be had for say, 17,000 pesos. armscor vs some anonymous guy on buyandsell with an as is where is danaoteeneleven.

Quote:

you think all your restrictions could have filtered out *****holes like allan bantilles? rolito go? they've got money and property so they must have tons of self-control right hehehe. mas mayaman, mas mayabang.

no, i do not think that. any system can and will be fooled from time to time.

* (of rent and logic)
as promised earlier, here is the explanation. it's a matter of figures and ratios. of course there are bad eggs in the ranks of the wealthy, and surely you will agree that there also are bad eggs in the ranks of the poor and all those in between.

which do you think is correct? (N being the number of people in that category, the letters a,b,c, and d being the classic "class" categories)

1.) N(a) + N(b) > N(c) + N(d)

or

2.) N(a) + N(b) < N(c) + N(d)

(correct answer is 2)

even if the incidence rate of bad eggs per 100 people is the same across all sectors, say two percent, you will always end up with more armed unqualified (bad?) people by making it easily available to the lower classes, always.

at present, there simply is just too many of them.

------------------------------------------------------------

i resorted to mathematical formulas for conciseness, and also for Allegra, he seems to enjoy Gladwell type writing and I am happy to oblige.